Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

If regular classes are too intimidating then beginner's classes are a great option, but why would you want to purposely recruit students merely because of their gender?

Best,

Chris

Erm...why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? We're simply looking for another way to increase the number of female students. It may work, it may not. Consider it something of an experiment for my dojo, if you like. Of course it would be ideal if *every* student is able to "jump right in" and mix it up with everyone - but *some* folks aren't comfortable doing so. Although there is a higher percentage of women practicing Aikido in comparison to other martial arts, Aikido *is* still male-dominated. Some women can get intimidated working out with a bunch of big guys - even in a beginners class. I'm not one of those women; I jumped in most *every* single beginners and mixed class from day one. But then again, I also had previous martial art experience (TKD and Iaido), so I at least possessed some "martial intent" and "awareness". I've also worked with some rather timid female students in the beginners classes who were clearly intimidated by some of the more "elaborate" techniques - even though it was a "basics" class.

I don't know if this is something you can understand as a male. Since most women tend to be "smaller" then their male counterparts, it can be rather daunting for them to practice techniques on someone twice their size. Yes, we *should* be able to practice with *any* person, regardless of size or gender. But sometimes, it *is* helpful to work with someone closer to your size. When I was learning koshinage, I tried to partner with someone closer to my size (male or female) as much as possible. Working with a big guy simply wasn't helping me with the general "form" of that particular technique. When I got a *little* better (seriously...my koshinage still sucks), I started taking on bigger guys, but it took some time for me to get to that point.

My whole point is that different people have different needs. What works for one person may not work for the next. We're just trying to access those who may not be "ready" to take on a "regular" class yet.

"The ultimate aim of martial arts is not having to use them." - Miyamoto Musashi

I personally think people may teach as they will. It is simply none of my business who teaches who, and no one should be forced to teach a person or group against their will. That said, it will significantly benefit the practitioner of Aikido to come in contact with a wide variety of other humans during training. Limiting a student's ability to contact a wide variety of other practitioners is at some point going to be doing the student a disservice.

Erm...why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? We're simply looking for another way to increase the number of female students.

I'm just not certain why it would be necessary to recruit students by gender, race or any other such characteristic.

Quote:

Jennifer Yabut wrote:

I don't know if this is something you can understand as a male. Since most women tend to be "smaller" then their male counterparts, it can be rather daunting for them to practice techniques on someone twice their size. Yes, we *should* be able to practice with *any* person, regardless of size or gender. But sometimes, it *is* helpful to work with someone closer to your size. When I was learning koshinage, I tried to partner with someone closer to my size (male or female) as much as possible. Working with a big guy simply wasn't helping me with the general "form" of that particular technique. When I got a *little* better (seriously...my koshinage still sucks), I started taking on bigger guys, but it took some time for me to get to that point.

I'm quite a bit smaller than a number of the women that I train with (I average around 125 pounds), and I often train with people more than twice my size.

Quote:

Jennifer Yabut wrote:

My whole point is that different people have different needs. What works for one person may not work for the next. We're just trying to access those who may not be "ready" to take on a "regular" class yet.

I personally think people may teach as they will. It is simply none of my business who teaches who, and no one should be forced to teach a person or group against their will. That said, it will significantly benefit the practitioner of Aikido to come in contact with a wide variety of other humans during training. Limiting a student's ability to contact a wide variety of other practitioners is at some point going to be doing the student a disservice.

Of course, people are free to do what they like - that doesn't mean, however, that a particular course of action is wise or advisable.

I'm quite a bit smaller than a number of the women that I train with (I average around 125 pounds), and I often train with people more than twice my size.

Hi Chris-
It is good that you are not intimidated by others because of your size. However, if overcoming intimidation were that simple for everyone, in all situations, we would not be having this discussion.

But in fact, we live in a world where men in general are free to do as they please, whereas women are at this point in history part of a living movement to struggle towards equality. Jennifer Smith was right-- it is always difficult to get into this argument, and like others in this thread, I didn't want to, but then I thought there is a remote chance that me piping up might affect you in some way because I am not female myself.

Although there are MANY motivations ("justifications" if that is how you must see it) to do this sort of class, let me just mention one in an attempt to make this point of view valid for you.
One in 3 women (statistically would include lots of people you know.. and it is assumed to be on the low side of accurate) in the US are estimated to have been sexually abused. You might have guessed it, it is usually done by a man. This has a lot of effects on one's life, including an aversion to putting yourself in situations where you will go and be one of very few women, or the ONLY woman, to get grabbed and thrown by a bunch of men who know what they are doing and are very confident and often a little aggressive. But you can see that aikido might ultimately be good for you.. even though at first it would seem so unattractive that you probably would pass by a dojo without ever even thinking about the possibility of becoming a member.

So, you can see that such an outreach/transition class would not only be a reasonable thing to do for the dojo's enrollment, for the women in question, and for society at large, but it would in fact be the RIGHT thing to do.

Now of course this is an extreme example of how quite a few women are not on equal footing with men regarding confidence issues in and out of the dojo. Although it is an extreme example, it is in fact an illustration of something that is not specific to sexual abuse against women:

The emotional reaction to being excluded by a group that has power or apparent power over you can cause one to become discouraged. You may debate if sexism against women is present, but please consider that it is likely to be real and active in a world where men enjoy more high power positions and higher pay, in a world where female dojo enrollment is decremented at dojos that don't actively seek women, and in a world where women must every day be vigilant of the very real threat of sexual violence against them.

Do you think any of us have a point, or does it still seem like blind sexism to have a women's outreach beginner class?
--JW

This has a lot of effects on one's life, including an aversion to putting yourself in situations where you will go and be one of very few women, or the ONLY woman, to get grabbed and thrown by a bunch of men who know what they are doing and are very confident and often a little aggressive. But you can see that aikido might ultimately be good for you.. even though at first it would seem so unattractive that you probably would pass by a dojo without ever even thinking about the possibility of becoming a member.

Why would anyone be getting beat up by more experienced practitioners in a beginner's class? Sounds like more of a class management problem to me than anything else. I'm all in favor of beginner's/transition classes, but I don't see that segregating them by gender is necessarily the wisest choice.

There are plenty of people who would be more comfortable in classes that are all white, or all black, or all hetero or homo, but that doesn't mean that slicing and dicing the practice into separate groups is going to be beneficial in the end.

Quote:

Jonathan Wong wrote:

Do you think any of us have a point, or does it still seem like blind sexism to have a women's outreach beginner class?
--JW

I never said it was blind sexism, or that there would be no benefit - what I said is that there is an inherent destructive quality in dividing people into sub-groups based on immutable (or near-immutable) characteristics such as gender, race or religion - enough so that it ought not to be done without a compelling reason.

Now if you're talking about special circumstances, such as self defense classes for abused women, then it may be that you can make a compelling argument.

But no, I wouldn't consider the kind of general beginner's class that we've been talking about to be much of a compelling argument.

Why would anyone be getting beat up by more experienced practitioners in a beginner's class?

Well, they probably wouldn't. What is at issue here is perception. If you are not a martial artist, but are still a person who could benefit from aikido, you might not necessarily know about how things go in a martial arts class. So you wouldn't realize that aikido is something that is good for you. You might never think about aikido, and what a shame (for all of us) that would be. The point is outreach catered towards people who feel excluded.

Really this type of class is a way to include those who may not feel comfortable under normal circumstances-- there are in fact a lot of them.

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote:

Now if you're talking about special circumstances, such as self defense classes for abused women, then it may be that you can make a compelling argument.

Well, maybe that is what we are talking about, in essence. Many people do aikido for self defense, and many people are abused women. If you are an abused woman seeking a self defense class, then aikido for that person is exactly a "self defense class for abused women." So, this temporary 10-week intro class is a way to reach out to her, so that she will see the benefits of aikido for her, so that she can become a regular dojo member in the future.

Look, everyone can see that your general argument makes some sense. Dividing people is bad, that is of course true. If male dominance in the dojo creates a barrier that keeps women out of the dojo, then by your own argument, something should change. So what can change? Well, someone creating an all-women dojo is one way. I think we all see the problem with that system of permanent divisiveness. No wonder the aforementioned dojo failed. This women's intro class however is a form of outreach, which by its very nature is a form of inclusion, not exclusion. I see it that way anyway. It is just 10 weeks of a class where women are not made to feel uncomfortable. There are still infinite weeks of classes where men are not made to feel uncomfortable, even on the same days as the women's class. It is hardly a case of male exclusion.

Well, that's my opinion anyway! There is no right or wrong, so I won't argue any more. I just hope you can see that the point of this, and the results of this as mentioned in previous posts, is inclusion of women, not exclusion of men.
--JW

Look, everyone can see that your general argument makes some sense. Dividing people is bad, that is of course true. If male dominance in the dojo creates a barrier that keeps women out of the dojo, then by your own argument, something should change. So what can change? Well, someone creating an all-women dojo is one way. I think we all see the problem with that system of permanent divisiveness. No wonder the aforementioned dojo failed. This women's intro class however is a form of outreach, which by its very nature is a form of inclusion, not exclusion. I see it that way anyway. It is just 10 weeks of a class where women are not made to feel uncomfortable. There are still infinite weeks of classes where men are not made to feel uncomfortable, even on the same days as the women's class. It is hardly a case of male exclusion.

Myself, I wouldn't say that the answer to divisiveness is to create more divisions. At least, not unless the circumstances were fairly extreme.

"We're not anti-(xxx) we're pro-(xxx)" - insert your own groups, this is a pretty common argument. The problem is not that there are no alternatives for males or whatever group is excluded, the problem is the division itself. Wasn't that the question addressed in "Brown v. Board of Education"?

Myself, I wouldn't say that the answer to divisiveness is to create more divisions. At least, not unless the circumstances were fairly extreme.

"We're not anti-(xxx) we're pro-(xxx)" - insert your own groups, this is a pretty common argument. The problem is not that there are no alternatives for males or whatever group is excluded, the problem is the division itself. Wasn't that the question addressed in "Brown v. Board of Education"?

The problem is not that there are no alternatives for males or whatever group is excluded, the problem is the division itself.

This is a very theoretical point of view, and I could see myself agreeing with this theory. It is a hard-line approach that is easy to defend if you are on the priviledged side of a pre-existing cultural division, such as the cultural division that makes it easy for us males to have so much self-confidence that we can saunter into a dojo and say, "ok sign me up!"
I see what you are saying, but I disagree in cases like this where all around us, some people actively put energy into keeping males in power-- don't we need to actively put energy into stopping this arrangement, if it is to ever end? Anyway I just wanted to explain why I would disagree with something that sounds fine to me in theory. (I not talking affirmative action in dojo enrollment, just supporting a females-only intro class that feeds into regular class)

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote:

Myself, I wouldn't say that the answer to divisiveness is to create more divisions. At least, not unless the circumstances were fairly extreme.

So then, what is the better solution to the masculine dominance in aikido, which evidently has the power to prevent women from signing up (due to the support from a culture that priviledges men)?
--JW

This is a very theoretical point of view, and I could see myself agreeing with this theory. It is a hard-line approach that is easy to defend if you are on the priviledged side of a pre-existing cultural division, such as the cultural division that makes it easy for us males to have so much self-confidence that we can saunter into a dojo and say, "ok sign me up!"

Well, I spent more than a few years on the under-priviledged side of pre-existing cultural divisions - but I've never asked for any special arrangements, and I wouldn't take them if offered. Sure, it might have been more "comfortable", but at what cost?

Quote:

Jonathan Wong wrote:

I see what you are saying, but I disagree in cases like this where all around us, some people actively put energy into keeping males in power-- don't we need to actively put energy into stopping this arrangement, if it is to ever end? Anyway I just wanted to explain why I would disagree with something that sounds fine to me in theory. (I not talking affirmative action in dojo enrollment, just supporting a females-only intro class that feeds into regular class)

Which Aikido dojo are actively putting energy into keeping males in power? I'm sure there must be some - but I've only rarely seen an institutional policy of this kind. Besides, everybody is free to train as they like - male only, female only, whatever. I'm just saying that I don't see it as a particularly wise choice - not that you or me or anybody else should go around "stopping" it.

Quote:

Jonathan Wong wrote:

So then, what is the better solution to the masculine dominance in aikido, which evidently has the power to prevent women from signing up (due to the support from a culture that priviledges men)?
--JW

Why does it need to be "solved" - why is there an obligation to create a politically correct balance of race, gender or religion in the dojo? Unless there is deliberate intent involved, I don't see the problem.

just throwing in my own thoughts here. And if I am wrong then I am sure someone will correct me.

There was a woman only class that my dojo set up with a female instructor. As far as I understood it it was aimed as a self defence class for a certain amount of time with the aim of feeding them into the main class. Did not work out that way. Soon as it came to feeding in they did not come back.

The classes designed as feeder classes had a mixed group of people, they did feed in. Sure that brings the amount of females registered in my particular dojos up to Five and three teenage girls in the younger members section. Many a time I am still the only female in class. But it worked a lot better as far as I can tell than just having seperate classes for females only.

I can see the argument with regards to women feeling more comfortable working with each other for whatever reason. If it works in getting more women into a dojo then great as long as they do mix into the main class after. However if women need a womans only class in order to do Aikido I am just wondering how likely it is for them to join in with a males class afterwards?

This does also raise the question though, in my mind at least, of why are women in general staying away from aikido in the first place? Is it for cultural reasons, fear of the unknown, scared of training with men or are martal arts seen as a mans domain and women just find them not appealing?

Good thread...nice to see this type of serious respectful dialogue again here...

I very much agree with Chris on this one. As a person of color I had felt unwelcome in certain dojo when I first started training (now I could care less. I consider that a management issue. I certainly wouldn't have attended special Persons of Color classes or such.
Also at my dojo we've had several women come with the intent of pursuing aikido. None of them stuck with it. The reason they gave was that the training was too hard on them, not that they felt uncomfortable or intimidated.
Personally I think they key is to target a younger demographic while they're open mentally and physically confident. This goes for both males and females.
And I'd like to know what is the goal of an all womens class? Is it simply to increase female enrollment? If so, why? How does simply have more of X benefit the dojo or training? I simply like to have more ‘bodies' to train with. Hopefully they're cool people as well.

If male dominance in the dojo creates a barrier that keeps women out of the dojo, then by your own argument, something should change. So what can change? Well, someone creating an all-women dojo is one way.

It can change, but is it the best change to accomplish your goal?

My parents grew up in a south where seperate was considered equal. Please note that this did not function as a "feeder system" in any way. I've gotta go with Chris and Asim here. In general, I'd have to question this way of bringing in more female students.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

I've got mixed feelings on this. I could definitely see the benefit of an all women's class if there are religious restrictions in the community against unrelated male/female contact. I think it would also be a welcome thing among women who are very body conscious, either because of being overweight or because they have "perfect" bodies and have felt uncomfortable being in close physical contact with guys who find them attractive.

Fortunately, however, I'm old, ugly, and dumpy and fine with that, so I don't mind being in mixed classes at all.

In fact, I prefer it since I don't care for the social dynamics that can sometimes arise in an all-female group. I've never been made to feel overtly unwelcome by anyone because of my gender, and usually ignore the one or two jerks that crop up from time to time.

Just a short comment from a student who happens to be an at-home- mom.

I find evening classes difficult to fit into the schedule of my family. Typically going to class means finding a sitter for my youngest, (as my husband travels on business), shifting dinner to an hour earlier, making sure other kids' homework is done right after school, and a late night for my older kids who want to come train too (getting home at 9pm, which means bed no earlier than 9:30, and getting up the next day at 6am for school).

I would JUMP --thru hoops, maybe flaming ones, even -- at a class offered during the school day. Even if meant to be a introductory class I would do my best to weasel my way in. While it wouldn't address my kid's needs, it would give me a stress free time to add to my training schedule.

A women's only class? Well, usually I do enjoy training with the guys, 'cause I know I can't shift them on strength alone. On the other hand, after reading this thread, I think I may well appreciate better the opportunity to hone my sneakiness.

My parents grew up in a south where seperate was considered equal. Please note that this did not function as a "feeder system" in any way. I've gotta go with Chris and Asim here. In general, I'd have to question this way of bringing in more female students.

Best,
Ron

I think we all agree that segregation is bad-- permanent female dojos like the one I brought up in reference to Professor Goldsbury's above post are in this thread being used in to illustrate this.

This thread is about an intro course ("feeder" class), which has been pointed out in this thread to sometimes be effective in recruiting permanent female members, and sometimes unsuccessful. I feel like the arguments against segregation per se don't apply to this situation, in other words I think a women's intro class is a different thing than segregated dojos. It sounds like you guys feel differently, i.e. that feeder classes for a dojo are just the same as segregated classes. I don't think anybody here said that segregating a dojo would be a good idea--I certainly didn't mean that.
--JW

Now if you're talking about special circumstances, such as self defense classes for abused women, then it may be that you can make a compelling argument.

Chris[/quote]

Now, I would not advertise a class aimed at abused women. Most of them try to hide their situation, and they will rather not show up. Just make it a simple self defense class for women in general, and everybody will feel more comfortable registering.

I agree, but even in an all women students self defense class I think it is good to introduce male uke at some point during the experience. Performing technique against someone your own size and strength might be good in the beginning, but facing someone larger and stronger later on would build confidence and allow for the adjustments to technique that might arise in dealing with someone taller. Not to mention the fact that an abused woman might do well against other women but freeze up in their first encounter with a male attacker. Better to have that moment pass on the mats than in a real situation, IMHO.

Ugh...I read through that entire thread a couple months ago. I can't believe I read the whole thing!

Anyway...I do understand where both sides are coming from, and I agree, long-term segregation of the sexes doesn't do anyone any good. That includes all-male or all-female dojos. From what I'm gathering from some of the posts here, all-women "feeder" classes can go either way. They may be successful in attracting more women to the dojo and retaining them in the main classes...or it may turn out to be a bust.

I like training at my dojo, even though it is male-dominated. There are many times when I'm the only woman in the class. I like getting thrown around by the big guys and testing my technique on them. But since my dojo's membership is primarily male (with no female blackbelts...yet), I know it could potentially put-off some potential female students who have no previous martial art experience.

So what is wrong about having a separate intro course to "reach out" to those who may otherwise never join? It's just two classes out of the week, and the dojo has classes every day. May I also add that we also have two other noontime classes in the week which are *not* segregated?

And like I said earlier in this thread...it is kind of an experiment of sort. It may work, or it may not...

"The ultimate aim of martial arts is not having to use them." - Miyamoto Musashi

Which Aikido dojo are actively putting energy into keeping males in power? I'm sure there must be some - but I've only rarely seen an institutional policy of this kind.

Is anyone really talking about Aikido DOJO that are "actively putting energy into keeping males in power" or "institutional policies" that do so? Is that what you are talking about?
That's not what I was talking about.

I think it is clear that the real wall this argument is running into is this: some people think our social universe operates without man-made mechanisms that give underserved comfort to some people at the expense of undeserved discomfort to others, while others disagree. Lack of discriminatory laws on the books is not good evidence that there is no discrimination in reality.

Angela Dunn above asked -- why are women underrepresented in aikido compared to society at large? That's an interesting question that is hard to test. This experiement is one way to test a hypothetical answer. Women may lack interest, in which case dojos that feature this class would not significantly increase female enrollment over time. Or, a certain percentage of women may perceive emotional or psychological barriers to entering the world of aikido or martial arts, in which case we would expect a result like Jennifer Smith mentioned above, wherein dojos with these programs have significantly higher female enrollment in their regular class roster. Of course these are just 2 ways to interpret these results, but my point is only to illustrate the argument for these feeder classes.

As for why increasing female enrollment might be a desireable thing: anybody who cares about other people and thinks that aikido is good for people's physical, mental, or spiritual well-being (and therefore good for society at large) would understand why it is important to remove all barriers to aikido enrollment. I feel like we all enjoy doing aikido ourselves, and we all claim to care about others. So why are we contesting this motive? It's not about getting a certain # of women in dojos and saying mission accomplished-- it's about making sure that aikido is not discouraged for anyone who might want to do it.

I would be happy to stay with this thread if we were to talk about the mechanisms that we might design to remove barriers to aikido, in this case the barriers that some women (mostly women who are NOT in aikido btw) perceive.
But discussing whether or not sexism in our society might have a negative impact on the psychology of some members of our society is beyond what I can say more about.
--JW